“My MacBook has a Core 2 Duo CPU and features the Nvidia 9400M graphics chip, which is the cut off point for many Macs. If your Mac features the integrated Intel GMA950 or X3100, then you were already out of luck with the first Developer Preview of Mountain Lion,” Simon Royal reports for Low End Mac.
“With the release of Developer Preview 2 on March 16, another shock culling of Macs is proposed, and this time it looks like it includes mine, much to my annoyance,” Royal reports. “The latest requirement is that your Mac must boot into a 64-bit kernel. That’s okay, you might think, all Core 2 Duo Macs are 64-bit. Well yes, they [are], but not all can boot into 64-bit kernel. For whatever reason, Apple decided that some Macs around the 2008/2009 era can only boot natively into a 32-bit kernel.”
Royal reports, “To check if your machine is automatically booting to 64-bit, have a look in your System Profiler under Software and there is a line that says “64-bit kernel and extensions” – if that says Yes, then you are fine.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Time and technology marches on. Thank Jobs, Apple pushes the envelope. We much prefer that to stagnation.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Sarah” for the heads up.]
Wasn’t there another pile of operating system stuff that needed high-end graphics chips so they could load in more eye candy? What was that called?…oh yeah, Aero/Vista. Nice to see you’re coming around, Apple.
I’m using a late 2008 MBP and Snow Leopard. While it automatically boots into a 32 kernel, holding down the 4 and 6 keys while starting the computer boots the 64 kernel. So no problem here.
For Core2 machines on the fringe but 64 capable, perhaps Apple will release a firmware update pre ML release.
A computer that’s less than three years old made obsolete already?! If true, that really hurts! Seems Apple’s good fortune isn’t meant for their customers. I like the old Apple.
Well said. I love Apple, been using their shite since 89. But this new “leave everybody but the wealthy in the dust” paradigm is BS. Go on MDN, preach the word. Drink the cool aid and shovel the dollars to Apple.
Oh shite here, here come the haters ;-\
If you have a Mac that is several years old, then it will continue to work just fine after the release of OS X 10.8. You can continue to use OS X 10.7, which is a fine OS that is one or two generations newer than the version of OS X that came with your Mac when it was new.
I don’t hate you, bildad. But I don’t agree with your characterization of Apple.
Would you prefer that Apple suppress new functionality since it will not function on your Mac?
Would you prefer a Wintel-type computer that fails after two or three years so that you get your new OS on a new computer?
Would you prefer 8 years of an OS like Windows XP service pack infinity (followed by Vista) rather than several inexpensive OS upgrades to a computer that will continue to serve you well for another several years?
Or would you rather that Apple allow you and others to install OS X 10.8 on an underspecified “minimal” system configuration on which it would perform like a dog, after which Apple would be vilified by the media? Apple is likely (and justifiably) a bit wary of that potential pothole after the uproar regarding the upgrade of the iPhone 3GS to iOS 4.
Apple’s approach is continuous improvement in the design and implementation of Macs, OS X, iOS devices, and iOS, even when some older devices have to be trimmed from the upgrade path. I am aware that Apple is a huge corporation and that profits are very important. But I am not as cynical as you – I don’t believe that was a significant factor in setting the Mac hardware cutoff for OS X 10.8.
What? Where’s the serial port, and the PS2 port?!
What? I can’t dual boot OS 8 and Mountain Lion?!
Apple has gone to shite!
We’re doooooomed!
What’s the fastest route to the Microsoft Store?!
Idiot. That’s not the point and you know it.
Then please explain: what WAS his point?
The idea that not supporting a brand-new DEVELOPER PREVIEW of a POINT UPDATE = “Obsolete”?
Obsolete for whose purposes? For what tasks?
It was a hysterical and unhelpful screech which got exactly the response it deserved.
“The Old Apple”?
Which one, the one that deleted optical drives?
Or the one that killed Flash?
Or the one that removed floppy drives and serial ports?
If you need it explained then you’re as thick as an old MacBook.
bildad not everyone will be able to keep up, and that’s okay. Those of us who can afford a new Mac every few years do so because there’s nothing more important than the work we do, so… sucks to be you.
The old Apple that made the 6800 processor obsolete by moving over to PowerPC that they then dropped by moving over to Intel, or do you mean the Apple that killed Classic OS to move to OSX and now is killing 32 bit to move everything to 64 bit?
Not sure what old Apple you are talking about.
Yet continued to support the MC68000 ISA for at least another five years.
“Classic” ran under Mac OS X from version 10.0 (2001) until Leopard (2007)–6 years.
What we’re talking about here is 3 year old hardware.
And that 3 year old Mac hardware can continue to run OS X 10.7, which will be supported by Apple for some time to come.
Your point?
His point is that cut off affects him negatively. Several recent examples: customer has a still perfectly good running iMac, albeit older OS version. Customer goes to buy the latest iPhone, damn it won’t sync with his computer, because it requires a newer version of iTunes, which requires a newer OS. Real customer pain. Could have been eliminated, apple has the capability to make it work, but chooses not to. icloud would be another example, many are not at lion due to software compatibility issues. Cannot use iCloud.
Don’t be so smug, you are personifying the elitist pr!ck stereotype apple users are labeled as being. Apple won, everyone wants their kit now. They were legendary for running forever, we’ve bragged for years about old updates making old macs faster, giving them new features. Those days seem to be a fond memory, apple is now using new features as a wedge to get people to speed up their upgrade cycle. Some of us see it for what it is and are not such fanboys we cannot admit the truth.
Well said. I can’t stand reading this BS from some Mac heads. Not everyone sits in movies basement steeling photoshop and wasting time. My machines are all money makers, period and i will not be upgrading a room full of Mac Pro’s just so we can use iCloud.
Apple has more and more of a who cares, we are the ones on top attitude now.
Take iTunes library sharing. On the old AppleTV you could get content from any Mac on the network but now you can only share the content if you are signed into the same AppleID. That sucks big. What about 4 dudes sharing a place for school? Are they to all share an AppleID just so they can have their own content on the livening room AppleTV?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Agree wholeheartedly.
And what did Microsoft do that one time? Some people had computers, not even one year old, that were kicked to the curb.
You could still boot and run vista, you just couldn’t enable Aero so you didn’t see transparent effects on the dialogs. I knew a few people screwed by that upgrade.
I have a late 2006 15″ MBP. System Profiler/Extensions states: “64-Bit (Intel):Yes.”
Click on the “Software” line in the Contents pane of System Profiler. Look for the “64-bit Kernel and extensions:” line and see if you still think your 2006 model is still OK. My 2009 MacBook Pro says no. Many of the extensions say “64-bit (Intel): Yes”. My iMac bought the same day is OK.
My friend still has a Dual CPU G4 (two CPUs, not cores) and still using Corel for advertising. Of course he has a MacBook for traveling and presentations, but the good old PowerMac G4 still on business with Leopard. Can any one say his windows computer from 6 years ago still working in intensive graphics applications?
I run prepress for a commercial sheetfed printing business doing intense graphics. Most of our workstations are Macs. We still have an XP box, circa 2005, with Adobe Creative Suite on it that runs everything we throw at it. Hell we can even run PageMaker, from the 90s, on it. Can you really accuse MS of not being backwards compatible? I’m no MS fan but really?
BTW I have a full stable of G3 G4 G5 and Intel Macs still hard at work. Lion? Not so much. Not in the foreseeable future.
Totally agree…the move to Lion was, in my opinion, the worst thing Apple has ever done including geoport, the hockey puck mouse, e-world, the Apple digital cameras, licensing the OS,
hiring Gil Amelio…Lion takes the cake. It is riddled with bugs, and introduces a kind of dumbing down of the system that simply makes no sense.
There is dumbing down and there is simplification. 😉
Lion has not been my favorite either. Hate to say that the “Save As” issue still bothers me. Takes extra steps to do the same thing now. But there’s not a lot else I found really exciting.
I do think that Mountain Lion may bring some significant improvements since it will have to leave so many recent machines behind. Maybe it’s just the retina display support it is expected to have. With such a high threshold, I do hope it will be worth it.
I beg to disagree, MDN. Apple has been erecting virtual walls where technically there are none: White MacBooks are capable of booting Mac OS X to a 64 bit kernel, but can’t because Apple decided only MacBook Pros should have that right. Even installing a 64 bit version of Windows via Boot Camp is denied to White MacBook owners.
Correction: Windows x64 can be installed, it’s just the Boot Camp drivers that will refuse to install stating “Boot Camp x64 is unsupported on this computer model”.
I had the same problem. In the end i had to manually point windows to the location of location of the drivers.
I think I had to rip some of the drivers out of a package or two first. I don’t quite remember the exact steps I took as it has been a couple of years.
I do remember thinking it was a bit more work than it should have been!
I have beef when the limits are imposed by committee.
You can’t really tell much from developer previews. It’s possible it is just a limitation for this portion of testing and they will broaden the range as Summer nears. It’s also possible that the older machines will be left in the cold. Usually, though, Apple makes the software available to machines up to 4 years old at the cutoff.
Forced redundancy, more money for Apple Inc. … The Greed sets in! …. One way to begin alienating the faithful.
“Forced redundancy” What? We are supposed to buy two of everything? 😀
He probably meant “forced obsolescence”
My first Macs served me for more than a decade before becoming obsolete from OS updates. My next Macs didn’t make it to eight years. My current ones have barely made to it five and six, and the mini I bought in Dec of 2010 is apparently also obsolete.
I was planning to upgrade to Mountain Lion from Snow Leopard, but that won’t be happening now. It would cost me in excess of $6000 for new Mac hardware “upgrades” (and I’m not talking Mac Pros) that this software upgrade would require.
If Apple keeps up this type of “progress” it won’t be too many years before every OS upgrade will require a new Mac.
The Greed sets in!
Hopefully, Apple will open up the specs with an update. I have a MB and mac mini bought in early 2010. They are the late 2009 models and have similar specs. It would seem rather strange that they would not be covered by an OS update when they are still under Applecare.
These machines actually replaced an old Yikes PowerMac G4. It came with 8.6. Along the way, it had 9.0, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 installed.
My core2duo MBP barely runs Lion at an acceptable level (and I question that, sometimes). There would be no upgrading for me even if it were possible. It currently feels like an iPhone 3G running iOS4.
Only holding on to this ancient machine because I’m waiting for the next MBP.
From the sounds of things, that should be any ol’ time.
My 17″ MacBookPro 3.1 from 2007
can do 64bit Kernel & Extensions
according to System Profiler!
Greed indeed! In the past, I haven’t minded paying Apple’s high hardware profit margins because, as leodivinci1 says, us longtime Mac users expected a long hardware service life. But with so many frequent OS upgrades with so few real features causing so many recent machines to be obsolete it seems clear that Apple cares only for their newest and wealthiest customers.
causing so many recent machines to be obsolete
Define “recent”. And define “obsolete” while you’re at it.
From what I’m reading, all the machines that have been EOL’d as far as OS X is concerned are over 3 years old. Over 3 years old, and because the machine can’t run the newest hotness, that somehow means it’s “obsolete”? Cripes, we Mac users are so f****ing SPOILED!
So you can’t run Mountain Lion on your 3.5-year old Mac. Boo hoo hoo. It’ll still run Lion, you know. All your apps are going to continue to run. Hell, those apps will still run on Snow Leopard!
As long as Apple doesn’t immediately drop Snow Leopard support once Mountain Lion comes out, I have no complaints with them. My Mac is over 4 years old, and happily running Lion. I don’t even need to upgrade if I’m willing to live with Lion. Back in my PC days, I got 3 years out of a PC, and the last year was sheer torture.
All you whiners and moaners need to give it a rest. So your machine won’t run Mountain Lion. So what? What does that hurt, other than your ego? It’s not like existing Macs were becoming unusable and Mountain Lion was our only hope. You don’t need Mountain Lion to continue to run your Mac! Lion will continue to work just fine!
——RM
No need to berate and insult. The problem we have is that “64 bit kernel and extensions requirement” is ARTIFICIALLY IMPOSED.
Then terms like “obsolete” should stop being thrown around, and people should stop gnashing their teeth as if they’re not going to be able to run their computers any more once Mountain Lion comes out.
——RM
WTF are you lot smoking?? Stagnation … a 2009 machine not able to run the new OS, that just means after a machine is 3 years old its a chuck away job, how can that be a good thing. Clearly some of you have waaaaaay too much money!
Or you could, you know, just continue to run it with the existing OS. Which will still work just fine. Just sayin’.
——RM
Well, MacUK (AKA “TrollUK”), I am running Snow Leopard just fine on my MBP.
Thanks for the warning. I didn’t realise that Apple was going to activate a kill switch, shutting down any of my Macs that are not soon running Mountain Lion.
Daughters 2005 MacBook alive and working.
My 2006 MBP 15″ well, I’m typing this on it.
Wife’s 2002 PPC 400 Sawtooth running her business software under 10.3.3 alive and kicking PC’s rear!
Try keeping up in a k-12 school environment where money is tight. I’m running a school of g4 emacs on tiger which for now is fine for what we do. I can take them up to leopard but when they die the replacement cost will be crazy?
Apply for some grants, Ed.
The eMacs we used to run had drive issues. Otherwise, they were good. But it becomes time to upgrade to bring students a little closer to experience with more current software, if they use anything other than the browser and a WP application.
I think the 64-bit kernel requirement makes sense. My “Late 2006” 2.0 GHz 17-inch iMac is finally not being supported, after admirable service. That’s 6 years by the time Mountain Lion is release. So while there may be Mac models that are supported for a shorter time, some models were supported for a very LONG time.
I think I’ll be getting a 21.5-inch iMac (current gen) as an Apple Certified Refurb (currently $999) when the new models come out.
My ol’ iMac still works great for most things, but its performance is starting lag a bit (and it only has 3gb RAM) and I can’t play the latest games. The timing for a new iMac is quite “timely.”
No, it doesn’t, because the 64 bit kernel requirement is based on an artificial handicap.
My Early-2009 White MacBook is by all means capable, but Apple decided that the 64 bit kernel and extensions feature was reserved only to “Pro” machines.
Well, no. It’s not “artificial” because 64-bit versus 32-bit is a “real” distinction. Not having a 32-bit kernel means Apple no longer needs to maintain and test against the 32-bit kernel, going forward.
No. Incorrect. If you look into it the EFI firmware in the C2D’s is capable of being updated to 64 bit. Truth.
Just don’t get too board waiting for the update from Apple.
I understand that C2D is 64-bit. So my iMac can run 64-bit apps. But the OS is running the 32-bit kernel. This has been fine for me because with a RAM limit of 3gb (and older supporting architecture), a 64-bit kernel would have been of limited benefit. Also, I have some old peripheral with 32-bit drivers and they are not going to get updated (and they won’t work with the 64-bit kernel.
Microsoft is primarily a software company, so they are motivated to support the largest range of hardware possible, to make the audience as large as possible, at the cost legacy support and the “lowest common denominator.”
Apple is primarily a hardware company. Apple is motivated to push the envelope on user experience, to sell more hardware. Apple wants the “lowest common denominator” to be as HIGH as possible.
People should understand (and appreciate) the difference between Apple and Microsoft, and not whine when Apple makes design decisions that make perfect sense (for Apple).
My Early-2009 MacBook White has 4 GB of RAM installed and doesn’t boot with the 64 bit kernel.
My new(ish) Early-2011 MacBook Pro 15 came with 4 GB of RAM and does boot with 64 bit kernel and extensions.
Your point?
@ saldin2011
My guess is that Apple made a deliberate and logical decision about what Mac models would and would not be supported at each phase of Mac OS advancement. It was planned well in advance.
For the Mac models that have the OVERALL performance and specs to provide a satisfactory user experience with Mountain Lion, Apple invested the time and resources to develop and fully test the 64-bit kernel. For the Mac models that would not work well with 10.8, Apple did not waste the time and resources to provide an unnecessary 64-bit kernel.
Makes perfect sense…
No it doesn’t. The hardware on the 2009 MacBook and the 2009 MacBook Pro 13 is the same (same processors, same northbridge, same southbridge, same chipsets). And the kernel is independent of the hardware where it’s running. Apple does make mistakes and does screw users. They’re human.
Let me explain in the clearest way I can:
Apple can remove support for any hardware they want. It’s their platform and their right. I don’t object that.
BUT it’s an dick move to tell us they’re doing it because the hardware can’t run X feature (in this case, the 64 bit kernel) while knowingly withholding it. I said in a previous post I have a problem when limits are imposed by committee.
They should’ve stayed mum, just release a list of approved hardware and don’t give reasons that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
@ saldin2011
Maybe you should get your facts straight before having a fit.
13-inch MacBook from 2009 and a 13-inch MacBook Pro from 2009? Do a search on “Mac models supported by OS X Mountain Lion” to get many links that say the following:
“Mac models supported by OS X Mountain Lion
iMac (mid 2007 or later)
MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, 2008), (13-inch, Early 2009 or later)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid-2009 or later), (15-inch, 2.4/2.2 GHz), (17-inch, Late 2007 or later)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or later)
Mac Mini (Early 2009 or later)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or later)
Xserve (Early 2009)”
BOTH of those MacBook models are ON the list.
And THAT precisely proves my point. The cutoff is based on performance, and the ability (for a particular Mac model) to provide a satisfactory user experience. Apple did not waste time and resources to create a 64-bit kernel for a Mac models that do not need one.
Also, look at that list again. Some supported Mac models go back to 2007, while others are from 2009. If Apple was just making a “dick move,” why not just cut off ALL models from before a certain year, such as 2009. Hmmm… maybe it’s because it IS really based on overall performance and the ability of a particular Mac model to run Mountain Lion acceptably.
So, it still makes perfect sense…
Both models or on the list for DP1, but that was last month. This article (the one we’re commenting on) notes that Apple backtracked and removed support for the Early-2009 MacBook White on the just-released DP2.
With a bull argument about lacking a feature, that is technically untrue.
You can’t know unless you work on the ML team that the cutoff was due to inadequate performance, and the article doesn’t anything like that anywhere.
Let’s stop. This discussion has gone on for too long and neither has the power to change a thing.
You can “stop” responding to my posts any time you want…
But you cannot just state false information (either as a lie or through ignorance). The CURRENT developer preview of Mountain Lion still supports
“MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, Late 2008), (13-inch, Early 2009 or later)”
Not only does it support the MacBook that you claim to own, but the one BEFORE it. So be happy… Even this article starts with, “My MacBook has a Core 2 Duo CPU and features the Nvidia 9400M graphics chip, which is the cut off point for many Macs.” That’s the one you have (or the one before it), and it is the “cut off point” for BEING supported.
> You can’t know unless you work on the ML team that the cutoff was due to inadequate performance
No I can’t, but at least my position actually makes sense. If what you say is true, why does Apple still support the 2007 iMac with Mountain Lion? It should have already been “phased out” with Lion, it’s SO old… 🙂
Why? BECAUSE IT STILL HAS THE PERFORMANCE NEEDED TO RUN MOUNTAIN LION AND PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY USER EXPERIENCE. There are more recent lower-end Mac models that do NOT, so they are not supported.
And, it STILL makes perfect sense…
Let’s clear up a few things. Simon Royal, the author of the article has not run Lion or the Mountain Lion DPs so his knowledge is speculative. Also, I read the Apple Insider forum post where they state the Early-2009 WMB is supported (that’s a relief). You were right in that last regard.
With that out of the way, let me tell you you make sense only to yourself. You don’t know Apple’s intentions nor motivations. You don’t what they consider “lowest common denominator”. You don’t know Apple’s “acceptable Mountain Lion performance index” (which I’m making up, but you get the point). You don’t know. You speculate.
You don’t dispute the technical aspects because if we are to believe Apple’s statement (the ability to boot to a 64 bit kernel), the real cutoff point is 64 bit EFI support. Which all MacBooks from 2007 on possess.
You know Mountain Lion does run on a 2007 MacBook (and reportedly with good performance and full graphics acceleration, says a certain MacForums member), but still try to spin it as “Apple sure has a good reason (other than what they just said) because they want the best experience for us!”.
I’m calling them on the statement they themselves made which is a technical one. You excuse them. The end result is nothing. No one wins anything.
Hehe… I thought you were stopping. 🙂
The whole premise of your argument was that with two mostly identical MacBooks, one was supported with Mountain Lion and one was not. That turned out to be wrong, as I said several times before you believed me.
NOW, you want to continue to believe that Apple is making a “dick move,” I think, because you are a chronic pessimist. Your MacBook IS SUPPORTED with Mountain Lion. Be happy…
> With that out of the way, let me tell you you make sense only to yourself.
Me, and the vast majority of silently happy Apple’s customers (who don’t bother to post comments that they have no problem with and fully support Apple’s approach to pushing the platform forward). If even 1% of Apple’s Mac customers felt the way you do (that Apple is covertly “doing evil”), there would be literally hundreds of thousands of people (maybe even millions) complaining. Instead, we have a few dozen whiny posts on scattered web sites. Believe me… what I say makes sense to most people.
And you still have not explained why the “ancient” 2007 iMac is supported, if greedy Apple’s practice is to arbitrarily drop support just to sell more new Macs. Just maybe, BECAUSE IT STILL HAS THE PERFORMANCE NEEDED TO RUN MOUNTAIN LION AND PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY USER EXPERIENCE, and it would be wrong to drop support just because it’s old.
Making perfect sense, as before…
> You don’t dispute the technical aspects because if we are to believe Apple’s statement (the ability to boot to a 64 bit kernel), the real cutoff point is 64 bit EFI support. Which all MacBooks from 2007 on possess.
Actually, no… you have it backwards.
The real “cutoff point” is based on ACTUAL performance of a particular Mac model, not the existence of a 64-bit kernel (or 64-bit EFI support). As I said already, for the Mac models that have the performance needed to run Mountain Lion with acceptable user experience, Apple has invested the time and resources to create and fully test the 64-bit kernel. But if a Mac model does NOT have the performance needed to run Mountain Lion with acceptable user experience, Apple is not providing a 64-bit kernel (even if it is technically possible) because that would be a waste of time and resources.
See how you have it backwards? Apple’s support for Mountain Lion makes the 64-bit kernel exist for a particular Mac model, because it is necessary. If Apple is not supporting a particular Mac model with Mountain Lion, then support for the 64-bit kernel is not necessary (so it does not exist).
Correct, they have done similar things with ram to differentiate between mb & mbp in the past. The fan boys here cannot accept any criticism of apple, a perfect entity in their minds. No room for improvement..
Apple are slowly dragging us all into the future. That is 64 bit all the way. This is likely to be important for future product development.
On the flip don’t forget that your older machines will still perform well on Lion and Apple will support that for several more years. You don’t have to update your OS on older machine especially if in some cases the speed on the system will drop.
My upgrade cycle is speeding up since the newer machines are cheaper than they used to be. I once spent 3K on a 17 inch PB. Great machine but nothing to compare with the newer ones.
Upgrading to a new Mac can really save you time. Less waiting for things to happen. It can actually be more cost effective in the long term.
The problem I have with all this is the rejection of capable hardware based on ARTIFICIAL HANDICAPS.
I have an Early-2009 White MacBook.
Did you know it’s unable to run the Mac OS X 64 bit kernel and extensions because Apple decided that feature would be available only to MacBook Pros?
Did you know the 64 bit Boot Camp drivers refuse to install on a White MacBook?
Yay, my white Macbook sez 64!
I personally expect there to be a tool available to allow all early 2008 Macs onward to use 10.8 Mountain Lion successfully. It would be much along the lines of what XPostFacto allows with older PPC Macs.
Well, as long as there is not something about these excluded 2008-2009 Macs Apple has neglected to mention.
What a lot of people on this thread don’t seem to understand is that most (all?) of the Core 2 Duo Macs can function using a 64 bit kernel. It’s just that Apple hasn’t released the firmware upgrade that allows them to do so. Most of those critical of Apple for this are not complaining that Mountain Lion will require a 64 bit kernel, but that Apple may refuse to release the firmware upgrade allowing them to upgrade. Apple has NEVER done this type of thing in the past to machines less than 4 years old, when it was easily within its power to permit an upgrade. Hopefully, this non-hardware constraint is limited to the developer previews and Apple will fix the issue with the public release.
As for the whiners who are whining (and, yes, whining is exactly what you are doing) about the whiners and are willing to get by on Snow Leopard and/or Lion…. just wait until your favorite app is upgraded and requires Mountain Lion, necessitating a $1000+ hardware upgrade to run a $99 or less app upgrade.
How does Apple justify having to buy a new Mac to run the latest OS when the last Mac they sold me isn’t even 16 months old? Especially since the issue may be an artificial constraint.
Can you say planned obsolescence?
I had my indigo iMac from its launch up until 2008, which was the best part of 10 years. Incredible considering that I used it every day! Furthermore, every Apple owner I know has always got between 7-10 years’ worth of solid use out of their machine. Support for pre-Mountain Lion isn’t going to suddenly stop, and nor is third-party software going to abruptly shift its requirements. Perhaps we’re all making mountains out of… Developer Previews?
There sure are loads of trolls out today. Are they bored or paid to troll?
Great thread. I`m an Apple fanboy BUT if a company was to appear tomorrow and enable me to port all my stuff (iPhoto pix, MP3s etc) to a cheaper, reliable computer, I would do it. Apple has, I suspect (as many of you do), changed focus away from customer needs, to corporate greed. Shame. I love the thought of Apple more than the experience. BTW, I have 5 Apples running 10.4, 10.5, and 10.7. 10.5 was by far the best release of OSX in my opinion. iCloud is a fail. Does not work for the rest of the world where internet caps and prices are restrictive of use. I must be missing something but why would I pay for Apple to store all my digital life at a cost when my HDD does that for free? Internet access is not everywhere, my HDD is.
The rant continues: Apple may have a more serious issue here – what if I`m typically? I feel typical. 36 year old professional. Computer savvy. Well educated and well paid. Been in the Apple eco system for 13 years. Will never own a PC.
If I`m typical, there is a gap in the market here where I can (finally) to tempted to depart from Apple. I suspect Linux based solutions may be pending if they can be as good (and OSX is good) as Apple. As above, great thread and worthwhile debate.
My guess is that Apple made a well-considered and logical design decision well in advance. For the Mac models that OVERALL had the performance and specs to support Mac OS X 10.8, Apple invested the time and resources to develop and fully test the 64-bit kernel. For the Mac models that would not provide a satisfactory experience running 10.8, Apple decided not to make the 64-bit kernel available, because that would be a waste of time and resources.
Makes perfect sense…